Woman’s Hour now on Trans athletes

“Opponents think that allowing trans girls, who were assigned male at birth, to compete with cisgender girls is unfair.”

Are they talking about children?

“The mind boggles at how bloody idiotic the IOC are to get taken in by this bullshit.” @TedImgoingmad They aren’t idiotic at all. Just cowards. They probably thought the backlash from women would be easier to handle than that from TRAs. They must know that allowing a biological male to compete against females is inherently unfair.

Yes where are the women?

Joanna Harper sounds worried. The more responsible end of the trans activism spectrum realise they could be looking at a disaster of public awareness suddenly increasing enormously and not liking what it sees.

JH is hoping that the numbers of trans competitors are going to be very low, in the order of a handful, meaning that the public continues to be unaware. The goal is to have the low numbers for several Olympics so that a hugely significant change happens in a boiled frog kind of way. But they know that this could easily tip over into a great deal of awareness and anger.

Again, this is the kind of thing that will have certain people at Dentons pulling out their hair in vexation.

The New Zealand weightlifter Laurel Hubbard looks set to make history after being confirmed as the first transgender athlete to compete at an Olympic Games. Hubbard previously competed in men’s events before transitioning in 2013. She is eligible due to a change in International Olympic Committee guidelines on testosterone levels in 2015, and after qualifying requirements were modified by the International Weightlifting Federation. For many campaigners this is a landmark moment for trans people, whose participation at grassroots level sport is shamefully low. Moreover, while there are many different male and female body types, they see elite sport as reflecting society’s obsession with gender stereotypes and worry about the implications for anyone who does not meet ‘conventional standards’ of femininity. Opponents think that allowing trans girls, who were assigned male at birth, to compete with cisgender girls is unfair. They argue that, in the vast majority of cases, males are stronger, faster and more powerful than females – if that were not the case we would not have had to segregate sport in the first place. The New Zealand Olympic Committee chief executive, Kereyn Smith, said this complex issue required, “a balance between human rights and fairness on the field of play”. This raises a deeper philosophical question: what is the relationship between rights and rules? And which of these is best placed to achieve fairness – not just in sporting competition but between competing demands? When should rules and laws be challenged and when does a person’s sense of their natural rights go too far? With Dr Dafydd Mills Daniel, Joanna Harper, Debbie Hayton and Adam Wagner.

But still disgraceful not to have a female voice from either the scientific or the sporting community, when the science and the sport is the basis for the discussion of fairness in the first place.

Yes JH sounded kind of confused and wrong-footed that the topic had turned to factual analysis and asking difficult questions, instead of being just a lovely be kind celebration.

But… but … hmm no TW do have an advantage I suppose, but you know, not really! not if you would just be kind and stop talking about it and remember that TW matter more than women!

The bottom line for JH seems to be - crap data, obvious advantages but who cares, validation is more important, it's only women!

They really needed to have had Dr Emma Hilton on to give balance, though.

It's interesting how the WH "be kind" narrative seems to have run out at the point of this blatant cheating. They can empathise with elite female athletes being pushed out, but they cannot see the effect of trans activism on ordinary, every day women in their day to day lives.

Can’t believe JH straight up said that it’s ok to include TW women category because (according to JH) they’re closer to the women than to the men in strength. So that’s the right category for them. Yes because it’s all about what’s right for the TW and not anyone else

It’s like saying a cat is closer to a mouse in strength than to a tiger, so cats should be put in with the mice and it will be perfectly fine. It’s just a non-argument.

JH's presentation to the World Rugby workshop was pretty feeble too...

Harper is going to be on the Moral Maze talking about this, along with Debbie Hayton and another two male guests. No women invited, to discuss women's sports. It isn't as though they are short of very articulate and well informed women to choose from

Here's Joanna Harper arguing for trans women's inclusion in rugby:

www.outsports.com/2020/8/28/21405145/joanna-harper-world-rugby-transgender-athlete-ban-science-research-transphobia

I found it very illuminating: JH's bias shows quite clearly in the picture.

Joanna Harper is in an increasingly difficult position, as a trans-inclusion advocate.

Their most recent work agrees with Emma Hilton's - males on hormones do not lose all their advantage. The original case Harper put to the IOC is not valid, by Harper's own research.

So Harper now has to fallback to McKinnon-style philosophical arguments about "fairness not mattering", which isn't really Harper's area. Harper's a scientist.

Is JH still a PhD student, or a post-doc now?

Wow go Emma! She’s found her mojo. She sounds like someone who’s realised that facts and logical argument are key in this issue and the more she asks, the less it makes sense.

Next week, guest presenter Jenni Murray :o

JH talks exactly like a person who knows that what they are saying is obviously nonsense, but has to plough on anyway.

Well done Emma, she really put Joanna Harper on the spot. I was worried at the beginning that we were going to get the usual but allowing Joanna to be interviewed and put on the spot was probably more effective than having others against Hubbard's inclusion

Emma Barnett made it very clear at the end that they'd approached a wide range of people, including current female athletes, female weightlifters, representatives from IOC and British sport bodies, and none had been willing to take part.

I've heard Joanne Harper before and they always sound like that

This is great.

Emma is asking all the right questions, although she just did allow an odd point through about it being ok because trans women are a tiny minority of the population.

The PhD researcher has said:

• The science is less than ideal, there’s no data on trans athletes.
• Her own paper states that trans women retain a strength advantage over biological women… but she thinks that’s ok because we allow strength advantages in sport. She thinks it doesn’t have to be equal to be unfair. She thinks it’ll be fine in most sports.
• Trans women are a tiny proportion of the population. If it was “fair” Olympics would be 50/50 trans women and biological women. Laurel is just one person so it’s not unfair…
• Laurel will not win. Apparently a Chinese woman will win. (Bold claim!)

All in all, sounds like this scientist wants trans women in the Olympics so we can get data on trans athletes… Cart before horse.

And if one cheat is ok, why are we so against doping? Maybe every country should be allowed one doped athlete?

I think they were having problems answering. They were tough questions..